2007 Could Break Record Set in 1998
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, AP

LONDON (Jan. 4) - A resurgent El Niño and persistently high levels of greenhouse gases are likely to make 2007 the world's hottest year ever recorded, British climate scientists said Thursday.

Britain's Meteorological Office said there was a 60 percent probability that 2007 would break the record set by 1998, which was 1.20 degrees over the long-term average.

"This new information represents another warning that climate change is happening around the world," the office said.

The reason for the forecast is mostly due to El Niño, a cyclical warming trend now under way in the Pacific Ocean. The event occurs irregularly -- the last one happened in 2002 -- and typically leads to increased temperatures worldwide.

While this year's El Niño is not as strong as it was in 1997 and 1998, its combination with the steady increase of temperatures due to global warming from human activity may be enough to break the Earth's temperature record, said Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research unit at the University of East Anglia.

"Because of the warming due to greenhouse gases, even a moderate warming event is enough to push the global temperatures over the top," he said.

"El Niño is an independent variable," he said. "But the underlying trends in the warming of the Earth is almost certainly due to the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

El Niño can sometimes lead to milder weather, such as in the in the northeastern United States or the Atlantic Ocean, which is likely to see fewer hurricanes this year. However, it can also increase the severity of weather-related disasters, such as typhoons in the Philippines or drought in southern Africa and Australia, a country that is already suffering through its longest dry spell on record.

Environmental groups said the report added weight to the movement to control greenhouse gases.

"The evidence that we're doing something very dangerous with the climate is now amassing," said Campaign against Climate Change coordinator Philip Thornhill.

"We need to put the energy and priority (into climate change) that is being put into a war effort. It's a political struggle to get action done - and these reports help," Thornhill said.

01/04/07 07:41 EST

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.


2007-01-04 12:06:22


global warming sucks!

Today I ran 8 miles in Central Park in NYC. I also walked for a couple miles just because I enjoy the park so much. I was in shorts and a T-shirt and I was totally comfortable. Of course I was comfortable - it was seventy fucking degrees!

Owen wrote:
Today I ran 8 miles in Central Park in NYC. I also walked for a couple miles just because I enjoy the park so much. I was in shorts and a T-shirt and I was totally comfortable. Of course I was comfortable - it was seventy fucking degrees!

Yet, I have folks that say it is all BS. The reply, "Well, I felt the same today as when I was a kid a few decades ago". So, how do we change their mindset?? Seems like they have to wait till their hair catch on fire upon sun rise for them to acknownledge Global warning.

Can anyone say, Solar Flares?

I guess it's more hip to be chicken little!

Owen wrote:
Today I ran 8 miles in Central Park in NYC. I also walked for a couple miles just because I enjoy the park so much. I was in shorts and a T-shirt and I was totally comfortable. Of course I was comfortable - it was seventy fucking degrees!

It's official I'm jealous! You ran 8 miles in Central Park and here I'm stuck in Dubba vill. SNACKER! LOL

Lianna[dandelion]Ninja© wrote:
2007 Could Break Record Set in 1998
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, AP

LONDON (Jan. 4) - A resurgent El Niño and persistently high levels of greenhouse gases are likely to make 2007 the world's hottest year ever recorded, British climate scientists said Thursday.

global warming sucks!

last year was also one of the quietest on records for hurricans, I dont think we even had one that made it out of the catagory ot 'tropical storm' A big change from the previous season of Katrina, where they ran out of names. Why was that not splahsed over the headlines?? "Global Warming ends hurricanes!"

The problem is weather patterns fluctuate all the time, solar cycles, the tilt of the eart, the oblate shape of the earths orbit around the sun, and earths wobble all produce various cycles which effect the earths climate. For example, when in the summer months the earth is farther away from the sun in it's orbital cycle (the ellipse which describes the earths motion around the sun changes it's longest dimension by a few percent every few thousand years) and the tilt of the earth is away from the sun the most (the earths axis wobbles like a spinning top over thousands of years) then not enough winter snow is melted, meaning more snow builds up the following winter, and more sunlight is reflected back into space, meaning even less snow is melted, and the effect amplifies itself, plunging the world into an ice age in just a few hundred years. That just some of the major processes, the earths magnetic field plays a role (it reverses every 100, 000 years or so) the geothermal heating cycles of the earths interior, etc etc. We don't even know all the patterns that effect weather, and we can't predict the weather accurate more than a damn day or two, so I react with skepticism to the alarmism of global warming predictions.

Global warming sucks, but global cooling is even worse, imagine a 500' wall of ice barreling down on your city. The earth is always in a precarious balance between the two.

My friend in Manhattan says it's their warmest winter ever!

Jim wrote:

Owen wrote:
Today I ran 8 miles in Central Park in NYC. I also walked for a couple miles just because I enjoy the park so much. I was in shorts and a T-shirt and I was totally comfortable. Of course I was comfortable - it was seventy fucking degrees!

Yet, I have folks that say it is all BS. The reply, "Well, I felt the same today as when I was a kid a few decades ago". So, how do we change their mindset?? Seems like they have to wait till their hair catch on fire upon sun rise for them to acknownledge Global warning.

There are brilliant knowledgeable fools who deny Global Warming until all the evidence to comes in; even though to wait is possibly condemning our children and grandchildren to a harsh, dangerous future.

In frustration, I'm knitting a "register" of their names into a large quilt, in the hopes that those who refuse to see the wisdom of taking precautions will be held accountable for their Crimes Against the Human Specie.

To me it is not a matter of debate but a matter of survival.

Mlle. Defarge wrote:

Jim wrote:

Owen wrote:
Today I ran 8 miles in Central Park in NYC. I also walked for a couple miles just because I enjoy the park so much. I was in shorts and a T-shirt and I was totally comfortable. Of course I was comfortable - it was seventy fucking degrees!

Yet, I have folks that say it is all BS. The reply, "Well, I felt the same today as when I was a kid a few decades ago". So, how do we change their mindset?? Seems like they have to wait till their hair catch on fire upon sun rise for them to acknownledge Global warning.

There are brilliant knowledgeable fools who deny Global Warming until all the evidence to comes in; even though to wait is possibly condemning our children and grandchildren to a harsh, dangerous future.

In frustration, I'm knitting a "register" of their names into a large quilt, in the hopes that those who refuse to see the wisdom of taking precautions will be held accountable for their Crimes Against the Human Specie.

To me it is not a matter of debate but a matter of survival.

Its not that simple, weather is complex, and we cant even predict weather accurate to two days in advance, let alone one hundred years. The restrictions that would be required to make any kind of serious dent in CO2 pollution would severely hamper the economy and drive up the costs of every single material good, including most importantly food. Cheap food saves millions of lives every year, and making food more expensive will kill people NOW. Are you comfortable with MAYBE saving many lives later by DEFINATELY killing many people now? Even the IPCC only sees a few degrees warming, which could very well stave off another Ice Age. But all of this ignores what technological breakthroughs we might see in the next hundred years, like nanotech carbon scrubers or solar powered ocean calcium carbonate preciptators. Additionally, global warming is not the only thing that threatens humanity, it is just the only thing anyone talks about. A large comet or asteroid impact is much more devastating and would require massive scientific and industrial capacity to avert, and a large one would DEFINATELY wipe out all life on earth, not just humans, but all life. It is shortsighted to think only about global warming and to not weigh the consequences of different actions.

For once I agree with Matus. There are a multitude of things that point to the current global warming being mostly a natural cycle. I'm too lazy to cite a bunch of sources however.

Here's what I think is going on.

Global Warming is being used and a giant white rabbit by government bodies. It is a very abstract and hard to comprehend problem, and one that is not easily solved.

There are SO MANY more small, immediate problems that are being completely overlooked because everyone is talking about global warming. Problems that can be easily fixed, with a cost to industry and government. Those are the key words.

Everyone is so focused on global warming that you hear almost nothing about oceanic dead zones, which is, in my opinion, and much more dire problem.

Particulate polution (carcinogen), deforestation, pesticide runoff, sewege overflow. All of these things deserve attention before global warming. All are concrete problems with easy answers. Yet no one talks about them. Not media, not people. Invironmental groups are screaming these things on deaf ears.

Matus1976 wrote:

Mlle. Defarge wrote:

Jim wrote:

Owen wrote:
Today I ran 8 miles in Central Park in NYC. I also walked for a couple miles just because I enjoy the park so much. I was in shorts and a T-shirt and I was totally comfortable. Of course I was comfortable - it was seventy fucking degrees!

Yet, I have folks that say it is all BS. The reply, "Well, I felt the same today as when I was a kid a few decades ago". So, how do we change their mindset?? Seems like they have to wait till their hair catch on fire upon sun rise for them to acknownledge Global warning.

There are brilliant knowledgeable fools who deny Global Warming until all the evidence to comes in; even though to wait is possibly condemning our children and grandchildren to a harsh, dangerous future.

In frustration, I'm knitting a "register" of their names into a large quilt, in the hopes that those who refuse to see the wisdom of taking precautions will be held accountable for their Crimes Against the Human Specie.

To me it is not a matter of debate but a matter of survival.

Its not that simple, weather is complex, and we cant even predict weather accurate to two days in advance, let alone one hundred years. The restrictions that would be required to make any kind of serious dent in CO2 pollution would severely hamper the economy and drive up the costs of every single material good, including most importantly food. Cheap food saves millions of lives every year, and making food more expensive will kill people NOW. Are you comfortable with MAYBE saving many lives later by DEFINATELY killing many people now? Even the IPCC only sees a few degrees warming, which could very well stave off another Ice Age. But all of this ignores what technological breakthroughs we might see in the next hundred years, like nanotech carbon scrubers or solar powered ocean calcium carbonate preciptators. Additionally, global warming is not the only thing that threatens humanity, it is just the only thing anyone talks about. A large comet or asteroid impact is much more devastating and would require massive scientific and industrial capacity to avert, and a large one would DEFINATELY wipe out all life on earth, not just humans, but all life. It is shortsighted to think only about global warming and to not weigh the consequences of different actions.

Although you are obviously knowledgeable about many things, I tend to trust what I've expereinced in my lifetime and the opinion of the vast majority of climatologist who have weighed in on the matter.

Predicting macrotrends is different than predicting day to day weather (which by the way has become relatively accurate as of late).

Cheap food? I've never read this as factor to prevent tackling the problem of global warming although I agree that changes to the economy could be severe but not nearly as severe if we refuse to deal with the problem.

As for as breakthroughs in the next hundred years; no doubt there will be advancements, the sooner we develop these innovations the better. I am here to tell you Matus that YOU will experience the deleterious effects in your lifetime.

Yes there are other things that threaten humanity, but to suggest that concern about global warming drives everything else off the radar is ridiculous.

As far as a meteorite is concerned, if one was projected to hit Earth, I would acknowledge the problem and be among those trying to solve it. I'm afraid you on the other hand would be among the inevitable group of naysayers who would subscribe to a contrarian opinion that maintains nothing can be done.

The issue, to me, is a matter of wisdom even though questions remain; is it wiser to take precautions now when it is still possible to make them work or or is it wiser to just ignore the issue until its possibly too late.

Let me try another way to illustrate the dillema: You go to Vegas and you play the $10 table, you probably would be quite comfortable to bet liberally, however if you moved on to the $1000 table, you'd wisely, bet a little more conservatively. But what if your genitals were the only acceptable bet? I'm sure in that case you would probably not bet at all because it would be foolish to tempt the fates.

I don't wish to extend this debate any further because to me it's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of survival. And I truly think that Global Warming Deniers should be held accountable.

Matus don't be a fool, recant now. Help convince people that the wisest course of action is to start corrective action now before it's too late.

Matus1976 wrote:

Mlle. Defarge wrote:

Jim wrote:

Owen wrote:
Today I ran 8 miles in Central Park in NYC. I also walked for a couple miles just because I enjoy the park so much. I was in shorts and a T-shirt and I was totally comfortable. Of course I was comfortable - it was seventy fucking degrees!

Yet, I have folks that say it is all BS. The reply, "Well, I felt the same today as when I was a kid a few decades ago". So, how do we change their mindset?? Seems like they have to wait till their hair catch on fire upon sun rise for them to acknownledge Global warning.

There are brilliant knowledgeable fools who deny Global Warming until all the evidence to comes in; even though to wait is possibly condemning our children and grandchildren to a harsh, dangerous future.

In frustration, I'm knitting a "register" of their names into a large quilt, in the hopes that those who refuse to see the wisdom of taking precautions will be held accountable for their Crimes Against the Human Specie.

To me it is not a matter of debate but a matter of survival.

Its not that simple, weather is complex, and we cant even predict weather accurate to two days in advance, let alone one hundred years. The restrictions that would be required to make any kind of serious dent in CO2 pollution would severely hamper the economy and drive up the costs of every single material good, including most importantly food. Cheap food saves millions of lives every year, and making food more expensive will kill people NOW. Are you comfortable with MAYBE saving many lives later by DEFINATELY killing many people now? Even the IPCC only sees a few degrees warming, which could very well stave off another Ice Age. But all of this ignores what technological breakthroughs we might see in the next hundred years, like nanotech carbon scrubers or solar powered ocean calcium carbonate preciptators. Additionally, global warming is not the only thing that threatens humanity, it is just the only thing anyone talks about. A large comet or asteroid impact is much more devastating and would require massive scientific and industrial capacity to avert, and a large one would DEFINATELY wipe out all life on earth, not just humans, but all life. It is shortsighted to think only about global warming and to not weigh the consequences of different actions.

Well, this is funny, I think it is not cheap food safe millions, more in a line of profit margin of the rich, powerful short sighted ones, save millions into their own pockets while ignoring that the earth links everyone and everything together. A degree warm caused by CO2 of the earth, which consist of 2/3 ocean can cause a drastic change in the water ph in the ocean so, ocean calcium carbonate preciptations is a sign of global warming and not another unrelated problem. They are RELATED. As far as asteroid impact, can every human being do anything about it starting today that would help avoid an impact that is not forseeable? vs Global warming, can you as a person do your tiny part to help today to avoid the forseeable future? I'm sorry, it is silly to compare the two. Human can change their lifelihood, scientific long range statistics and physic law can't be changed that easily.

Mlle. Defarge wrote:

Although you are obviously knowledgeable about many things, I tend to trust what I've expereinced in my lifetime and the opinion of the vast majority of climatologist who have weighed in on the matter.

Predicting macrotrends is different than predicting day to day weather (which by the way has become relatively accurate as of late).

Cheap food? I've never read this as factor to prevent tackling the problem of global warming although I agree that changes to the economy could be severe but not nearly as severe if we refuse to deal with the problem.

As for as breakthroughs in the next hundred years; no doubt there will be advancements, the sooner we develop these innovations the better. I am here to tell you Matus that YOU will experience the deleterious effects in your lifetime.

Yes there are other things that threaten humanity, but to suggest that concern about global warming drives everything else off the radar is ridiculous.

As far as a meteorite is concerned, if one was projected to hit Earth, I would acknowledge the problem and be among those trying to solve it. I'm afraid you on the other hand would be among the inevitable group of naysayers who would subscribe to a contrarian opinion that maintains nothing can be done.

The issue, to me, is a matter of wisdom even though questions remain; is it wiser to take precautions now when it is still possible to make them work or or is it wiser to just ignore the issue until its possibly too late.

Let me try another way to illustrate the dillema: You go to Vegas and you play the $10 table, you probably would be quite comfortable to bet liberally, however if you moved on to the $1000 table, you'd wisely, bet a little more conservatively. But what if your genitals were the only acceptable bet? I'm sure in that case you would probably not bet at all because it would be foolish to tempt the fates.

I don't wish to extend this debate any further because to me it's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of survival. And I truly think that Global Warming Deniers should be held accountable.

Matus don't be a fool, recant now. Help convince people that the wisest course of action is to start corrective action now before it's too late.

First of all I am not a Global Warming NaySayer, humans have been pumping tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and it is pretty reasonable to assume that it is contributing to a greenhouse effect which is causing some warming. That's what CO2 does.

Predicting macrotrends, however, is far more complex than predicting short term trends. Take a look at the history of technological predictions and you'll see quickly what I mean. The head of the patent office in 1890, for example, quit because he said that everything that could be invented, all ready had been. Soon to follow was radio, X Rays, Nuclear Power, and all of the great technological innovations of the 20th century. Sci Fi authors of the 20's and 30's imagined people in space ships with slide rule's and log tables. Have you ever even seen a slide rule today? Nobody could possibly predict the computer or its consequences on humanity.

Similiar extrapolations about atmospheric effects COMPLETELY IGNORE technological innovation. Do you SERIOUSLY THINK there will be no major technological innovations in the next 100 years that would make a difference in Global Warming? Because that is what global warming alarmists are saying, I named two quick ones off the top of my head, which I am sure you have never heard of because today scientists are pessimistic and dystopian, not optimistic and innovative. Never mind that the UN just recently released a report stating that Cattle and farming are a bigger cause of global warming than cars are, but have you stopped driving and eating meat? Additionally the UN just issued a report reducing the estimated effect from global warming.

Additionally, the collected opinion of scientists doesnt mean squat, as they have been wrong about virtually every single scientific advancement in the history of humanity, the nature and causes of diseases, the geological history of the Earth, Evolution of life, the structure of the universe, the nature of matter, etc etc etc etc. To put blind faith in the 'collected opinion' of scientists (whose livelyhood depends on that very same scare mongering) is as shortsighted as putting blind faith in what oil companies have to say about global warming. And as fields of science become more and more specilaized the problem gets worse and worse

Agriculture is one of the biggest consumers of energy on the planet, we are damn good at making food, but it takes a lot of energy to do it, and cheap food is the only reason many people don't starve to death who otherwise would. We have a cure for global warming all ready, its called NUCLEAR POWER, which the former founding member of Greenpeace is now one of the biggest advocates of. But it was environemtalist scare mongering that made people irrationally afraid of nuclear power in the first place, so we continued to burn coal and oil for another 50 years, empowering murderous despotic regimes in the middle east and funding the terrorist attacks which kill us.

You think I am ignoring the threat about global warming and will help cause our perpetual downfall, but you are in fact the one who is ignorant about all the other threats to our existence, most of which are far more worrysome than global warming, but are not caused by humans so nobody cares about them. In fact most people presume that nothing cataclysmic will happen to the earth because "god won't allow it" or if it did happen, "God meant it to happen" so it's wrong to try to do anything about these things. Or they think, quite erroneously, that whatever the earth naturally does is good, wether it be a global sheet of ice or hellish volcanic onslaughts. Global warming, because it is caused by man, falls nicely into the feeling guilty about existence that is the only secular remnant of original sin that so many people are so willing to lap up. Death from a meteor strike isnt. And far from being a person who would proclaim there is nothing to worry about, I am probably the most vocal proponent of educating these people about these things on this forum. Can you name ANY of the numerous threats to our existence beyond Global Warming, which to me doesnt even rank in the top 10? I am here to tell you that one of these things, and NOT global warming, will probably kill you and everyone you love quickly and violently. I suggest you read about some of these things on your own, and use your own judgement to assess their dangers. I would suggest starting with Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"

Matus1976 wrote:

Mlle. Defarge wrote:

Although you are obviously knowledgeable about many things, I tend to trust what I've expereinced in my lifetime and the opinion of the vast majority of climatologist who have weighed in on the matter.

Predicting macrotrends is different than predicting day to day weather (which by the way has become relatively accurate as of late).

Cheap food? I've never read this as factor to prevent tackling the problem of global warming although I agree that changes to the economy could be severe but not nearly as severe if we refuse to deal with the problem.

As for as breakthroughs in the next hundred years; no doubt there will be advancements, the sooner we develop these innovations the better. I am here to tell you Matus that YOU will experience the deleterious effects in your lifetime.

Yes there are other things that threaten humanity, but to suggest that concern about global warming drives everything else off the radar is ridiculous.

As far as a meteorite is concerned, if one was projected to hit Earth, I would acknowledge the problem and be among those trying to solve it. I'm afraid you on the other hand would be among the inevitable group of naysayers who would subscribe to a contrarian opinion that maintains nothing can be done.

The issue, to me, is a matter of wisdom even though questions remain; is it wiser to take precautions now when it is still possible to make them work or or is it wiser to just ignore the issue until its possibly too late.

Let me try another way to illustrate the dillema: You go to Vegas and you play the $10 table, you probably would be quite comfortable to bet liberally, however if you moved on to the $1000 table, you'd wisely, bet a little more conservatively. But what if your genitals were the only acceptable bet? I'm sure in that case you would probably not bet at all because it would be foolish to tempt the fates.

I don't wish to extend this debate any further because to me it's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of survival. And I truly think that Global Warming Deniers should be held accountable.

Matus don't be a fool, recant now. Help convince people that the wisest course of action is to start corrective action now before it's too late.

First of all I am not a Global Warming NaySayer, humans have been pumping tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and it is pretty reasonable to assume that it is contributing to a greenhouse effect which is causing some warming. That's what CO2 does.

Predicting macrotrends, however, is far more complex than predicting short term trends. Take a look at the history of technological predictions and you'll see quickly what I mean. The head of the patent office in 1890, for example, quit because he said that everything that could be invented, all ready had been. Soon to follow was radio, X Rays, Nuclear Power, and all of the great technological innovations of the 20th century. Sci Fi authors of the 20's and 30's imagined people in space ships with slide rule's and log tables. Have you ever even seen a slide rule today? Nobody could possibly predict the computer or its consequences on humanity.

Similiar extrapolations about atmospheric effects COMPLETELY IGNORE technological innovation. Do you SERIOUSLY THINK there will be no major technological innovations in the next 100 years that would make a difference in Global Warming? Because that is what global warming alarmists are saying, I named two quick ones off the top of my head, which I am sure you have never heard of because today scientists are pessimistic and dystopian, not optimistic and innovative. Never mind that the UN just recently released a report stating that Cattle and farming are a bigger cause of global warming than cars are, but have you stopped driving and eating meat? Additionally the UN just issued a report reducing the estimated effect from global warming.

Additionally, the collected opinion of scientists doesnt mean squat, as they have been wrong about virtually every single scientific advancement in the history of humanity, the nature and causes of diseases, the geological history of the Earth, Evolution of life, the structure of the universe, the nature of matter, etc etc etc etc. To put blind faith in the 'collected opinion' of scientists (whose livelyhood depends on that very same scare mongering) is as shortsighted as putting blind faith in what oil companies have to say about global warming. And as fields of science become more and more specilaized the problem gets worse and worse

Agriculture is one of the biggest consumers of energy on the planet, we are damn good at making food, but it takes a lot of energy to do it, and cheap food is the only reason many people don't starve to death who otherwise would. We have a cure for global warming all ready, its called NUCLEAR POWER, which the former founding member of Greenpeace is now one of the biggest advocates of. But it was environemtalist scare mongering that made people irrationally afraid of nuclear power in the first place, so we continued to burn coal and oil for another 50 years, empowering murderous despotic regimes in the middle east and funding the terrorist attacks which kill us.

You think I am ignoring the threat about global warming and will help cause our perpetual downfall, but you are in fact the one who is ignorant about all the other threats to our existence, most of which are far more worrysome than global warming, but are not caused by humans so nobody cares about them. In fact most people presume that nothing cataclysmic will happen to the earth because "god won't allow it" or if it did happen, "God meant it to happen" so it's wrong to try to do anything about these things. Or they think, quite erroneously, that whatever the earth naturally does is good, wether it be a global sheet of ice or hellish volcanic onslaughts. Global warming, because it is caused by man, falls nicely into the feeling guilty about existence that is the only secular remnant of original sin that so many people are so willing to lap up. Death from a meteor strike isnt. And far from being a person who would proclaim there is nothing to worry about, I am probably the most vocal proponent of educating these people about these things on this forum. Can you name ANY of the numerous threats to our existence beyond Global Warming, which to me doesnt even rank in the top 10? I am here to tell you that one of these things, and NOT global warming, will probably kill you and everyone you love quickly and violently. I suggest you read about some of these things on your own, and use your own judgement to assess their dangers. I would suggest starting with Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"

I'll try to take up your argument paragraph by paragraph. I dislike typing and I try to be brief this sometimes may require the reader to excercise more effort than they might find reasonable. For that I apologize.

In the first paragraph we don't seem to have any disagreement.

In the second paragraph we do disagree. You say that Macrotrends are for more difficult to predict than microtrends. For purposes of illustration let's take the classical coin toss. In 5 tosses, (a microtrend), it is difficult if not impossible to predict the percentage of outcome. However in 1, 000, 000 tosses (a macrotrend), it is fairly easy to say that the outcome would be close to 50% heads and 50% tails. Oversimplified?

In the third paragraph, you've said that I "SERIOUSLY THINK" that there will be no technological advances in the next 100 years. If you had courteously read my previous argument you would have known that I concur that there will be future advances in technology. What I had previously tried to communicate to you is that we don't have a 100 years, without an effort at abatement, you will see the harmful effects of global warming in YOUR LIFETIME. Furthermore it is the purpose of "global warming alamists" to mobilize efforts to create solutions technological or otherwise.

In the same paragraph, you cite a U.N. study, and then derive from that study I should stop eating meat. What the eff? If your citation of the U.N. study is accurate that would merely mean that animal husbandry and farming are additional factors to be accounted for in the eventual solution of the Global Warming Problem.

Your intellectual rollercoaster came off the rails in the fourth paragraph. Your statement, "Additionally, the collected(sic) opinion of scientists doesnt mean squat, as they have been wrong about virtually every single scientific advancement in the history of humanity, the nature and causes of diseases, the geological history of the Earth, Evolution of life, the structure of the universe, the nature of matter, etc etc etc etc." is at best sophomoric at worst ridiculous. Wow, "they have been wrong about virtually every single scientific advancement in the history of humanity" what a statement.

Even individual breakthroughs in science have been derived in concurrence with or contrast to the collective knowledge of those who came before. Most great ideas don't spring forth fully grown like Athena from the head of Zeus. The Scientific Method itself derives it's power from objective truths verifiable by other scientists, which in turn become the foundation for further discovery. As to your statement of wrongness of putting blind faith in the collected(sic) opinion of scientists, I reiterate what I said before I "trust what I've experienced and the opinion of the majority of climatologists who have weighed in on the matter." As for your contention that scientist only voice opinions that they are paid for, I would say, that although in some cases that's true, I have more faith in humanity than to think that it is universal. In any case, one would have to weigh who has most to gain from the misrepresentation of the truth to determine who is believable.

The supreme irony of your fourth paragraph is that you also agree with "the majority of climatologists who have weighed in on the matter". You stated this in your first paragraph.

The first part of fifth paragraph is a bit confusing: if agriculture is so energy intensive how would it be possible for it to become a net positive source of energy. I doesn't sound right but either way, I don't think it jeopardizes my contention regarding the urgent need to address global warming. Also in this paragraph you bring up Nuclear Power. Technology has advanced to the point where Nuclear Energy is many times more safe than it was years ago. Indeed, it might be our only realistic choice. But I believe it's a trifle unfair to castigate those who cautioned against Nuclear Power. You have heard about that little thing called Three Mile Island? And last I read, the Chernobyl environs were still uninhabitable. Don't you think that "scare mongering" might be a little bit harsh?

As for your last paragraph, you seem to groping for my hot buttons. I believe what I believe, not because I follow blindly Scientists, Theology, or the common truths of the day. Most of my life, I've lived in close proximity to the ocean. The tidal zone in my area has been degraded to the point it contains less than half the life it had in my youth; this I have seen with my own eyes in my lifetime. We are in the process of killing the ocean, it is not a leap of intellect to think that mankind can alter the Global climate to disastrous consequences for our children and grandchildren.

Also in this paragraph you present the specter of all the calamities that can befall the planet that I in my ignorance do not know about. I remind you that Global Warming is the subject of our dialogue. To lose focus and worry about colliding meteors is a case of a bird dog chasing rabbits. Fun but not pertinent.

What you have to decide is ARE YOU PART OF THE PROBLEM OR ARE YOU PART OF THE SOLUTION! You will see the effects of Global Warming in your lifetime and will have to live with the recognition that you were part of the problem.

I have concluded that knitting your name in my quilt will restore the warm and fuzzy feeling that I've become accustomed to. Au Revoire.

Please read my post - a different take on global warming.

An Inconvenient Truth.....

anyone who debating and interesting in Global Warming, go to see this movie

http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/